Worst Reds Team Ever

by orangeandbrown on Jun 19, 2005 11:08 AM EDT Comment 6 comments

Could this be the worst Reds team ever. This morning, our winning percentage is .382, which projects to a 62-100 season. And a review of records confirms the instinct--in our history, we have rarely been this bad, and we're just a little slippage from being as bad as we ever were.

The 1982 team was the only other team to lose 100 games--their 61-101 record sets the franchise record for most losses in a season. Clearly, that record is in danger.

Percentage wise, we've had some worst seasons in years when the schedule was shorter. For example, here are the seasons below .400 in the NL Only.

1934 (.344)
1937 (.364)
1982, 1931 (.377)
1930 (.380)
2005,1933 (.382)
1932,1914 (.390)
1916 (.392)
1945 (.396)

In other words, based on today's record, the Reds have only had five worse seasons than the one they are having right now. And that just shouldn't be. But we shouldn't be under any illusions about how bad we are right now, because its very, very bad.

Not as bad, I might add, as when the Reds when from 1930-1934, with a winning % below 40% every year. That had to really suck. But we are historically bad for our franchise.

And we are, in my view, relatively healthy. What's missing is that our team went out and got players who are performing really badly.

By the way, that team had a guy named Si Johnson who was 7-22 with an ERA over 5, which was pretty bad in that era. Despite this, and thanks to the war, he pitched until he was 40--17 big league season...some of which were better than 1934 was for him.

0 recs | Comment 6 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Another number for you

We started this season 11-10.

Since April 27, we are 15-32.
A winning percentage of -wait for it- .319.

Where have you gone, Johnny Vander Meer?

by jgoodfri on Jun 19, 2005 4:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

In need of direction

This team needs a plan. That's all I ask, if we had a plan, then I'd feel a little better about losing, but we don't. I see little hope with the front office situation.

by Tyler on Jun 19, 2005 4:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

direction

Looks like we have one, it's just too bad it is down. But, have faith my brothers, don't lose hope. This team will not lose 100 games this season. It might drop 92 or more but will rally in Septemnber to avoid infamy. Also. they will get hot after the St. Louis series and will play .600 ball until the All-Star break!

Where is Mario Soto when you need him?

by Caleb on Jun 19, 2005 9:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

here's the thing

Its another topic, but this is our record with these guys...what about a worse team after a firesale? I generally do not believe we will lose 100 games, but I find it increasingly hard to generate empirical evidence of it.

by orangeandbrown on Jun 19, 2005 11:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think you're right...

In terms of talent, I think the 2003 team (after the firesale) was absolutely the worst of the last 20 years. This current team is one of those that looks better on paper than they do on the field, except the pitching staff doesn't even look good on paper.

I think this team will only lose 100 games if they do a couple of things that they very well could do:

a) trade a key component like Dunn, Casey, Lopez, or Griffey

-and-

b) don't fire Miley or O'Brien

A trade of a key guy will be a downer to many of the players in the clubhouse and if they don't get rid of Miley or O'Brien (more likely Miley) then I think these guys will give up and no one will be able to motivate them to do otherwise.

--
Pinch hitting at Reds (and Blues)

by Slyde on Jun 20, 2005 7:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bengals

Think Bengals. We'll be like them in the years where they play well after being eliminated. Think positive boys! We'll rally to play .430 ball this year. :)

Where is Mario Soto when you need him?

by Caleb on Jun 20, 2005 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs